Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #126

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your post made me think about the other people on the trails that day. How many people witnessed Abby and Libby on their walk and where did they see them along their route? Does anyone have a clear understanding of that?
Iirc, no one else was in the parking area when Kelsi dropped the girls off..at least not that we know of, is that correct?

The very first televised appearance of family members was Dec/17 on Dr Phil. During that interview Libby’s grandmother said nobody at all saw the girls on the trail because there just happened to be a lull in other people walking the trail at that time. There’s prior discussion in early threads, however as this Dr Phil appearance isn’t on youtube due to their copyright infringement policy, I’m unable to link it.
 
It’s interesting that you had a POI “all along” and now don’t think it was that person. I’m not sure if your epiphany made you change your mind or something else, or maybe a whole collection of things?
Does your old POI not use snuff? Does your old POI not live simply like this one appears to live and you don’t think he was dressing/appearing simple to plan to not be recognized?
I also have a POI who has moved down my list, but it’s mainly because he isn’t local and is taller than 5’10. And because others move up the list.
So now I’m just wondering — what makes someone move down a notch on other people’s list?
Just a light bulb that went on in my head. (Perfectly sober, by the way. :))
 
It's still MOO that they've used this terminology "no longer person of interest" and "different people" because they are trying to find a simple way to communicate to the public that the information developed for the OBG composite sketch comes from a different source (sources) than the NBG one and that the one depicting younger features is now considered by LE to be much closer to the actual appearance of the perpetrator.

As I said before, the sketches are developed from the memories of witnesses or potential witnesses....not even witnesses to the crime itself in the Delphi case, but witnesses of behaviors that were suspicious at the time or in retrospect. They aren't mug shots and they aren't stills from surveillance footage, both of which would represent an actual person that exists. They are memories filtered through the interpretation of a sketch artist.

To understand the point I'm trying to make, think of the many sketches that were created in the Golden State Killer case. Out of all of them I've seen, to my eyes only one captured a likeness to the actual perpetrator as he looked when the crimes were being committed. So can we conclude that the sketches that didn't look like the actual appearance of GSK were actually of other people, unconnected to the crimes? No, they were inaccurate because the victims' and witnesses' memories of facial recall were imperfect, a neurological phenomenon that has been studied and is well known.
I for my part can't recognize the video still of BG as being sketch #1 or sketch #2. That doesn't matter for me, because I believe, LE is searching for the right person, and that is sketch #2 since 2019. IF sketch #1 OBG is an accomplice (LE don't rule out 2 men being in the "killing-team"), then I'm thinking of someone related to my poi, who is looking like sketch #1. There is a sketch, there is a witness/are witnesses; there has to be someone with the look of Old BG and he has to be found also. He would lead us to NBG, if not the other way round.
The voice, which sounds a little bit older than for example a 29 year old or a 32 year old, can be damaged by yelling too much or drinking too much or smoking too much or taking drugs - or all together even. We don't know. The voice doesn't rule out, BG being sketch #2, so young looking. IMO MOO
 
Absolutely, yes. I knew someone who was part of an investigation and I was shocked to learn that text messages couldn’t be retrieved by a prosecutor’s office after 48 hours had passed.
Thanks for the good information. This is another indicator suggesting that not all social media exchanges can be recreated, even with national level resources.
 
2. Can all social media exchanges be re-created- even by the FBI? In particular, there has been discussion on this forum as to whether all former Snap Chat exchanges can be recreated by anybody.

I have no idea what the answer to question number two is. Likewise, I have no idea as to whether or not there was a planned meeting. I do know that the FBI had a very hard time retrieving intact data from the phones of the San Bernardino terrorists- so much so that they needed to take Apple to Court.
FBI–Apple encryption dispute - Wikipedia

The difficulties for the FBI in retrieving erased phone data demonstrate that even the FBI has electronic limitations and that one can greatly hinder the FBI by using commonly available technology such as an Apple phone.

As another poster pointed out, the answer to question two is probably a closely guarded secret. Quoting Lao Tzu: "Those who say, don't know and those who know don't say".

I wanted to take a closer look at this topic. We know Libby had a phone and presumably other devices on which she used social media and other programs (MP said in either Down the Hill or Scene of the Crime that the night the girls went missing, he returned to their home and gathered up iPads, iPods, laptops, and any device he could think of with internet capability and delivered them to LE to be searched for signs of where the girls might have gone). In Scene of the Crime, AW said that BP was a step ahead of her and already had passwords for Libby's devices. Supposedly Abby had a tablet but not a cell phone. So what would LE have been able to legally obtain pertaining to data, including social media conversations, regarding these devices?

I found this recent article that talks about what LE can legally do: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

The short answer is, it depends. But chances are with the right legal paperwork (warrants etc), the FBI can get it.

Can law enforcement get third party data from your phone? Yes, and it doesn't even need physical possession of your phone if you're using some type of cloud service. If you are sending or receiving DMs on Twitter or Instagram for example, and that info is stored on the provider's servers, with a subpoena, warrant or court order, they can likely get access. The quote from an expert in the article was: "Anything that a provider has that they can decode, LE is getting it."

Note: if LE wanted to see, for example, text messages that the girls were exchanging with a friend, and that friend agrees to show them to LE, a warrant isn't even needed. If the friend refuses, a warrant can be pursued to get access.

What if the phone is password protected? Supposedly BP had Libby's passwords but let's assume she didn't. Courts have ruled that the 5th Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to reveal their passwords to devices or encrypted programs. However, if you are dead, your 5th Amendment rights die with you. Once Libby was discovered to have been murdered, LE could legally use passcode cracking programs if needed. If LE has the necessary search warrants, these can be put into motion.

What about the issue mentioned in this thread with regard to the San Bernardino terrorist's phone, where the FBI had to sue Apple to try to force them to unlock it? As this article describes, the FBI actually had ways to get into the encrypted phone all along, but wanted to establish a legal precedent to force phone manufacturers to make it easy for them to access devices in criminal cases: Revelations on the FBI’s Unlocking of the San Bernardino iPhone: Maybe the Future Isn't Going Dark After All

As the article states, the FBI was, in fact, able to use one of its contractors to break into the phone before the court case with Apple was settled. So they were able to get the access they needed regardless, though they probably weren't thrilled that they had to advertise that they had the capability to do this.

The FBI Operational Technology Division has two units that work on issues pertaining to data like this: the Cryptologic and Electronic Analysis Unit, which works mostly on criminal cases, and the Remote Operations Unit, which uses network exploitation techniques and works largely on classified (government) cases. They collaborated on the San Bernardino criminal case.

We heard in the early days of this investigation that it was briefed all the way up to the office of then-director of the FBI James Comey. So IMO if there were FBI resources that could have helped interpret the girls' social media and other encrypted digital activity, I think that all of these resources would have been used.

IMO LE in this case knows exactly what the girls were doing online and with whom AND they know whether this was a factor in the crime.
 
I’m just curious - is it possible to have a SC acct without a cellphone, as I recall it being stated by Abby’s mom that she didn’t have one as she felt her daughter was still too young. Yet it appears she had a SC acct. Almost immediately after the murders were announced I recall mention by LE of the “girls’ cellphones” which has always piqued my curiosity, how LE could make that mistake.

Referring to Post #47
IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION
 
I’m just curious - is it possible to have a SC acct without a cellphone, as I recall it being stated by Abby’s mom that she didn’t have one as she felt her daughter was still too young. Yet it appears she had a SC acct. Almost immediately after the murders were announced I recall mention by LE of the “girls’ cellphones” which has always piqued my curiosity, how LE could make that mistake.

Referring to Post #47
IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION

IMO you can sign up with a valid email instead.
 
Beginning at 3:42, you’ll find discussion of the analysis of Libby’s cellphone by Indiana Computer Crimes Against Children Taskforce. The cellphone was retrieved, the original source. IIRC Iphones in 2017 didn’t have very good battery power. I’d be surprised if Libby was connected to iCloud while walking the trails as it tasks battery power, or had any need for Google in an area she was well familiar with. The time the recipients received the SC would be compared against the time she sent it to determine if the time set on her phone was accurate.

Regardless, LE has never discussed the SC photos that I can recall. The media ran with the story scooped from FB, later confirmed by KG.
JMO

Good points.

I think it's worthy of note that the SC images shown widely in the media right after the murders came from a reporter from Indy, who got them from a searcher that evening.

I've been unable to find the news report where it showed the searcher showing the images to the reporter on his cell phone, I believe it was a 10PM newscast out of Indy (10Pm EST).

The images were being sent to various searchers as a reference of sorts, that indeed the girls had made it to the bridge around 2PM.

JMO
 
Shoot, in hindsight I think about three or four of those GSK sketches were on the money. Especially the one where he had the longer face. Captured his eyes well relative to what he looked at the time. He changed his appearance a lot. There's a mustache sketch that makes him look like Dewey from Scream and that's exactly what he looked like with it. I need a better reason from LE to say the younger sketch is better than simply that they might have ruled out the first person the sketch was based on. That doesn't disqualify age or make someone younger the prime suspect when you have that video. Show of hands, who looks at the video and sees and HEARS a man at least 38 or older?
I might go as low as 35, but I agree that he sounds to be in his 40's+
 
I wanted to take a closer look at this topic

I found this recent article that talks about what LE can legally do....
Lets look at the concern: Q. Can law enforcement re create all social media exchanges?

There seem to be two components:

- What can law enforcement legally do (as you stated)?
- What is technologically possible for law enforcement to do?

If it is not technologically possible to re create certain social media exchanges, then the legality of the action does not matter. Nor does the need for search warrants etc.

IMO LE in this case knows exactly what the girls were doing online and with whom AND they know whether this was a factor in the crime.
I don't have that view as it could well be possible that it is technologically impossible for law enforcement to re create some social media exchanges- even if they have the right search warrants etc.


As another poster pointed out, whether or not law enforcement has the technological ability to re-create all social media exchanges is probably a closely guarded secret.

In the end, the Law Enforcement does not want the word to go out that it is technologically impossible to cre-create deleted exchanges from social media platform "S" to prevent that platform from becoming the go to platform for terrorists and criminals.​
 
Last edited:
Lets look at the concern: Q. Can law enforcement re create all social media exchanges?

There seem to be two components:

- What can law enforcement legally do (as you stated)?
- What is technologically possible for law enforcement to do?

If it is not technologically possible to re create certain social media exchanges, then the legality of the action does not matter. Nor does the need for search warrants etc.


I don't have that view as it could well be possible that it is technologically impossible for law enforcement to re create some social media exchanges- even if they have the right search warrants etc.


As another poster pointed out, whether or not law enforcement has the technological ability to re-create all social media exchanges is probably a closely guarded secret.

In the end, the Law Enforcement does not want the word to go out that it is technologically impossible to cre-create deleted exchanges from social media platform "S" to prevent that platform from becoming the go to platform for terrorists and criminals.​
This article gives a little insight in to the art of the possible in tracing. This example talks about the dark web, not tracking social media exchanges, but the science behind it is the same.

Crime Cracking Technologies for the Dark Web - CTech

Amateur opinion and speculation
 
I’m just curious - is it possible to have a SC acct without a cellphone, as I recall it being stated by Abby’s mom that she didn’t have one as she felt her daughter was still too young. Yet it appears she had a SC acct. Almost immediately after the murders were announced I recall mention by LE of the “girls’ cellphones” which has always piqued my curiosity, how LE could make that mistake.

Referring to Post #47
IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION
I have SC on my iPad.
 
Lets look at the concern: Q. Can law enforcement re create all social media exchanges?

There seem to be two components:

- What can law enforcement legally do (as you stated)?
- What is technologically possible for law enforcement to do?

If it is not technologically possible to re create certain social media exchanges, then the legality of the action does not matter. Nor does the need for search warrants etc.


I don't have that view as it could well be possible that it is technologically impossible for law enforcement to re create some social media exchanges- even if they have the right search warrants etc.


As another poster pointed out, whether or not law enforcement has the technological ability to re-create all social media exchanges is probably a closely guarded secret.

In the end, the Law Enforcement does not want the word to go out that it is technologically impossible to cre-create deleted exchanges from social media platform "S" to prevent that platform from becoming the go to platform for terrorists and criminals.​

As to the bolded part...yes, I'm the one who originally pointed that out.

This is only my opinion, which we all have here, but I'd be surprised if there is anything that hits our phones or computers that is technically 100% gone forever once "deleted." As the articles I referenced pointed out, you have to depend on both parties deleting everything without screeenshotting or archiving in any way. You have to depend on whatever app or provider you are using completely deleting your content from their servers (I'm aware that there are some who SAY they do. That doesn't mean it does happen exactly as stated. At one point SnapChat even had in its terms of service the information that it does cooperate with law enforcement upon legal request and that even though shared media is deleted from their servers, it may NOT be "in every case." Sometimes the photo you sent another user may be gone, but any text information you added is retained by the provider.)

And even if the content is gone forever, a forensic trace of contact might remain that can be reconstructed to give LE lines of inquiry. In other words, they might not be able to figure out WHAT you said, but they may be able to trace WHO you were talking to via various totally legal means.
 
I wanted to take a closer look at this topic. We know Libby had a phone and presumably other devices on which she used social media and other programs (MP said in either Down the Hill or Scene of the Crime that the night the girls went missing, he returned to their home and gathered up iPads, iPods, laptops, and any device he could think of with internet capability and delivered them to LE to be searched for signs of where the girls might have gone). In Scene of the Crime, AW said that BP was a step ahead of her and already had passwords for Libby's devices. Supposedly Abby had a tablet but not a cell phone. So what would LE have been able to legally obtain pertaining to data, including social media conversations, regarding these devices?

I found this recent article that talks about what LE can legally do: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

The short answer is, it depends. But chances are with the right legal paperwork (warrants etc), the FBI can get it.

Can law enforcement get third party data from your phone? Yes, and it doesn't even need physical possession of your phone if you're using some type of cloud service. If you are sending or receiving DMs on Twitter or Instagram for example, and that info is stored on the provider's servers, with a subpoena, warrant or court order, they can likely get access. The quote from an expert in the article was: "Anything that a provider has that they can decode, LE is getting it."

Note: if LE wanted to see, for example, text messages that the girls were exchanging with a friend, and that friend agrees to show them to LE, a warrant isn't even needed. If the friend refuses, a warrant can be pursued to get access.

What if the phone is password protected? Supposedly BP had Libby's passwords but let's assume she didn't. Courts have ruled that the 5th Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to reveal their passwords to devices or encrypted programs. However, if you are dead, your 5th Amendment rights die with you. Once Libby was discovered to have been murdered, LE could legally use passcode cracking programs if needed. If LE has the necessary search warrants, these can be put into motion.

What about the issue mentioned in this thread with regard to the San Bernardino terrorist's phone, where the FBI had to sue Apple to try to force them to unlock it? As this article describes, the FBI actually had ways to get into the encrypted phone all along, but wanted to establish a legal precedent to force phone manufacturers to make it easy for them to access devices in criminal cases: Revelations on the FBI’s Unlocking of the San Bernardino iPhone: Maybe the Future Isn't Going Dark After All

As the article states, the FBI was, in fact, able to use one of its contractors to break into the phone before the court case with Apple was settled. So they were able to get the access they needed regardless, though they probably weren't thrilled that they had to advertise that they had the capability to do this.

The FBI Operational Technology Division has two units that work on issues pertaining to data like this: the Cryptologic and Electronic Analysis Unit, which works mostly on criminal cases, and the Remote Operations Unit, which uses network exploitation techniques and works largely on classified (government) cases. They collaborated on the San Bernardino criminal case.

We heard in the early days of this investigation that it was briefed all the way up to the office of then-director of the FBI James Comey. So IMO if there were FBI resources that could have helped interpret the girls' social media and other encrypted digital activity, I think that all of these resources would have been used.

IMO LE in this case knows exactly what the girls were doing online and with whom AND they know whether this was a factor in the crime.

OK, it is very interesting. Here is what happens in my own house. Two accounts, on ATT and on Verizon. My kid's iphone and one of mine are on Verizon. My own ipad is on ATT. I can see messages sent to his Verison iphone on my ATT iPad. Swear. I can even answer them.

I assume because we probably used the same icloud? And he uses my email for one of his apps? So I think at the Xing betweeng Google and icloud and these Apple devices talking to one another interesting things happen...Google knows a lot about us, and Apple is a chatterbox ))

Now, if you think of a house with several adults and kids and many SM devices, like I imagine the Patty's house was, something similar could have happened in their house. In this case, you do not necessarily need passwords to devices. If a kid used your icloud to sign in, or your email to establish a Twitter account, you potentially can see some of the things on her SM whether you want it or not. Photos, for sure. Those photos you see even if the phones are old.

What is interesting - in terms of motive - is whether Libby, being tech-savvy and smart, could have gotten some messages meant for certain adults in the house? We always discussed "revenge" as one of the motives, and I always said, "no"; no one would hunt a kid planning to get at an adult. I assume...

But the reverse could have happened. Libby could have gotten some messages meant for someone else, and maybe tried to joke with a person, or something like it, or said "don't call here". Or simply, tried to answer as an adult. And then she became the target.

So, not necessarily a pedophile targeting a kid, not necessarily someone trying to conceal own sexual indiscretion (I have all these motives in mind), but maybe, some deals totally unrelated to a kid but the person being horribly angry that the kid stepped into it.

I think it was an outsider's job. I also think that looking at phones/accounts/plans/whose email and iclouds were once used by Libby could answer who needed to target her. Or maybe thought he was going to meet some adult at the bridge.

In short, I think the whole situation might have been reversed.
 
IMO LE in this case knows exactly what the girls were doing online and with whom AND they know whether this was a factor in the crime.

I agree LE, to a degree, knows these girls' online activity. But I have some questions regarding this. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to clear up some things for me.

Can LE generate a list of all persons who simply view a FB page?

Can screenshots, or photos, of messages be taken, and forwarded to others, thereby being untraceable? Say I'm going swimming, and I text a friend to let them know I'll be at the pool. That friend receives that text, and a person is looking over the recipients shoulder, snaps a photo, and then sends that photo to yet another? (Reason I ask is, I worked in public school for 20 years and KNOW such methods to be used by teens to avoid detection)

Could conversation be overheard, might the rumor mill pass a persons intentions unknown to that person? For example, I'm asking to go to swimming. Someone I've asked mentions at work that they have to pick me and a friend of mine up at the pool at 5pm.

And yet, simply, the killer(s) in this case may have had awareness of the use of this bridge, and it's surrounding trails, by teens, and on this day, may have known that the opportunity would present itself, due to the fine weather, and the fact that school was out that day.
 
A
This is only my opinion, which we all have here, but I'd be surprised if there is anything that hits our phones or computers that is technically 100% gone forever once "deleted."

I used to share your view that nothing is every truly deleted. This was especially so if a national level police agency ala the FBI put their vast resources into it. But... then came the Apple verse FBI phone dispute.

Forcing the Apple lock would lead to the material being deleted. It was extremely, extremely difficult for the FBI to recreate the deleted material. So much so, that they went to Court rather than risk deleting the material. Eventually, another party taught the FBI how to recreate the material and they forced the lock.

Now, I am not so sure. In the end, "more combinations than grains of sand" type encryption software is becoming readily available. The Apple dispute implies that the software can also scramble deleted material to the extent that it is extremely difficult for even the FBI to recreate.

I suspect, but am not certain that some social media exchanges may be using similar scrambling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
1,666
Total visitors
1,851

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,178
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top